2010 Owners Collusion on Salary Cap

[JDM]

So now you are saying the league DID tell teams not to overspend in the NON capped year. I guess instead of Mara and Goodall on the stand I'll use an idiot who will say something like this as he's arguing against collusion. Like I said a lawyer may tear me to shreds but I'd kick your ass in that courtroom.

This is all after the fact. As part of the negotiations on the new CBA.

 

[fordman84]

He says "threatening to fine teams" is extortion. I say different options on the table for how to handle abuse of the uncapped year is negotiation.

"ok buddy, you are going to give me $500k or I'm going to do one of the following: shoot you, stab you, drop you off the roof. Which do you want".


No officer, it wasn't extortion...we were negotiating.

 

[Manster7588]

This is all after the fact. As part of the negotiations on the new CBA.

Maybe I'm wrong but if I were to offer one party money to get that party to support my intentions to screw over another party is in fact a bribe. Think about the NFL promised the union money they were NOT going to get if they didn't let the NFL fine two other teams. Along with the NFL promising not to punish two teams ad long as they don't vote against the NFL. I don't see how you can't see this as a possible smoking gun.

 

[JDM]

Maybe I'm wrong but if I were to offer one party money to get that party to support my intentions to screw over another party is in fact a bribe. Think about the NFL promised the union money they were NOT going to get if they didn't let the NFL fine two other teams. Along with the NFL promising not to punish two teams ad long as they don't vote against the NFL. I don't see how you can't see this as a possible smoking gun.

First off, a cap penalty is not a fine.

Second, no, this is simply part of negotiations, and all above board. Football is big business and you will not prove a hint of how their negotiation process works. But if you did, you still wouldn't have a case. This is not illegal. It may be a bribe in actuality, but it doesn't come near the legal definition of a bribe.


Legally, a bribe is paying (extremely loosely defined) an individual to act in a manner different than their job description entails. So having a boxer throw a fight, or if they gave one of the teams reps some cash on the side to change their vote, that kind of thing. Leverage in negotiations is simply part of the process and entirely legal.

 

[jarntt]

First off, a cap penalty is not a fine.

Second, no, this is simply part of negotiations, and all above board. Football is big business and you will not prove a hint of how their negotiation process works. But if you did, you still wouldn't have a case. This is not illegal. It may be a bribe in actuality, but it doesn't come near the legal definition of a bribe.


Legally, a bribe is paying (extremely loosely defined) an individual to act in a manner different than their job description entails. So having a boxer throw a fight, or if they gave one of the teams reps some cash on the side to change their vote, that kind of thing. Leverage in negotiations is simply part of the process and entirely legal.

You have no idea what you are saying. Threatening a team to vote a certain way by specifically telling that team if that you will do something to harm them financially and their ability to put the best team possible on the field and especially when that outcome can be proven to financially harm a third party or prevent them from putting their best team on the field is NOT IN ANY WAY NEGOTIATING. Now to be clear I do not necessarily think that is what happened. BUT IF IT DID, it is not a negotiation and it is not OK TO DO. I don't ever say this, but please go away. Your team is in the Championship game...go to your board and talk about the game...PLEASE!!!

 

[jarntt]

Actually, stay. This thread is not even interesting any more, so if you are here I won't need to read your BS in other threads. I'm guessing if I went to the NE Board you wouldn't be well thought of there, correct?

 

[JDM]

You have no idea what you are saying. Threatening a team to vote a certain way by specifically telling that team if that you will do something to harm them financially and their ability to put the best team possible on the field and especially when that outcome can be proven to financially harm a third party or prevent them from putting their best team on the field is NOT IN ANY WAY NEGOTIATING. Now to be clear I do not necessarily think that is what happened. BUT IF IT DID, it is not a negotiation and it is not OK TO DO. I don't ever say this, but please go away. Your team is in the Championship game...go to your board and talk about the game...PLEASE!!!

Yes it is, and it is legal. Every single negotiation ever done with this high stakes is done by both making it agreeable to work with you, and making it disagreeable not to work with you. That is how business works.

There is no evidence it even happened, but if you could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, you still would not win.

 

[PDay8810]

Pissing into the wind comes to mind

 

[cowboycolors]

Yes it is, and it is legal. Every single negotiation ever done with this high stakes is done by both making it agreeable to work with you, and making it disagreeable not to work with you. That is how business works.

There is no evidence it even happened, but if you could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, you still would not win.

And your just STUPID beyond a reasonable expectation of doubt
Legal is all about finding the facts and a way to introduce them into evidence happens everyday

your arrogance is akin to what happens to attorneys that think they cant be beat

ask Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden perfect example with a so called slam dunk case and what happened ?

Never say you cant be beat ever!

 

[JDM]

And your just STUPID beyond a reasonable expectation of doubt
Legal is all about finding the facts and a way to introduce them into evidence happens everyday

your arrogance is akin to what happens to attorneys that think they cant be beat

ask Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden perfect example with a so called slam dunk case and what happened ?

Never say you cant be beat ever!

 

[Manster7588]

Is this the best response you have? Just a dumb is all you've got? Oh, never mind, if course a dumb look is all you got. Your responses have proven to be well on the dumb side so it makes sense you'd look the part.

 

[JDM]

There needs to be some train of thought for me to reply to it.

 

[Manster7588]

There needs to be some train of thought for me to reply to it.

Naw, I'm sure just your everyday day look.

 

[cowboycolors]

There needs to be some train of thought for me to reply to it.

your Dumb look is about right

you just don't get it Nothing is ever a given in the legal system

Enjoy your Game Sunday

 

[jarntt]

Where has our favorite Patriot fan been this week? Kinda quiet...